Film board should cast wider net for studio land
Port Lands have the potential to be more than just another short-term, ill-conceived project
Suddenly, it seems everyone wants a piece of the Port Lands. First there was Waterfront Toronto, which received (partial) control of the massive 323-hectare landfill site when it was created in 2001. A decade later, along came Doug Ford with his ferris wheel, monorail and megamall. Then last year it was Sidewalk Labs, which hopes its futuristic Quayside neighbourhood will eventually encompass the Port Lands.
Now there’s the Toronto Film, Television and Digital Media Board.
Co-chaired by Councillor Paula Fletcher and Jonathan Ahee, president of NABET 700-M Unifor, the union that represents 1,000 film, TV and media workers, the body is quietly eyeing large swaths of the Port Lands for big box studios and back lots.
This probably wasn’t quite what Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne and Toronto Mayor John Tory had in mind when they pledged $1.25 billion for Port Lands rehabilitation last October. The money was intended for the renaturalization of the mouth of the Don River and the construction of land forms that will keep the area above water and make development possible.
It’s true that some film studios will have to close because of the remediation work, but the board is scrutinizing a number of properties that add up to far more land than the industry stands to lose.
At its most recent meeting, on Feb. 5, the film board discussed issues such as how to limit residential development and keep land values artificially low, the possibility of having the city pay for movie studios, 50-year leases and the need for extensive rezoning to accommodate the industry’s needs.
To be clear, film studios have been part of Waterfront Toronto’s Port Lands plans since they were drawn up nearly a decade ago. But those plans also include residential, retail, recreational, commercial and cultural uses. The idea was to establish a balanced and fully mixed-use neighbourhood on the water’s edge.
That’s why tensions between competing claims are reaching a breaking point.
Curiously, Waterfront Toronto’s most problematic relationship has consistently been with the city, not the provincial and federal governments. Perhaps municipal resentment has kept local politicians and bureaucrats from embracing the tripartite agency. The fact it has done a much better job at urban planning than the city might also be a cause of civic antipathy.
The film board’s sense of entitlement says much about city hall’s willingness to overrule years of Waterfront Toronto’s work in hot pursuit of an endless series of illconceived, short-term, self-serving, largely illusory goals. The Doug Ford episode was a prime example of the stupidity of which the city is capable.
The film board’s interest in the Port Lands is rooted in its need for space, something the Port Lands offer in abundance. As board members lamented, however, the area will be a construction site for decades to come. Reconfiguring the Don alone will take up to seven years. Then comes the Gardiner expansion, the Unilever remake and the building of several new precincts. All of this is bad news for an industry that can’t operate without peace and quiet.
Were the film board to cast a wider net, however, it would discover multiple sites much better suited to its needs. Just weeks ago, for instance, Campbell Soup announced the closure of its Etobicoke plant. That opens up yet more real estate in a low-density part of Toronto that’s already home to a number of film studios. In 2017, Cinespace, which operates in the Port Lands, began construction of another two studios in Etobicoke. At the ground breaking, Cinespace vice-president Jim Mirkopoulos told the press that his company “has had to turn away at least 10 projects in . . . 2017 . . . because of lack of studio space in Toronto.”
An artist’s rendering of Cinespace’s new studio shows a windowless three-storey box clad in what could be either metal panelling or pre-cast concrete.
The 2017 Quayside Request For Proposals made it clear that, “Excellence in design inspires and propels Waterfront Toronto’s vision . . . in everything from buildings and streets to parks and public art.” The same document also stated that, “it may be beneficial to advance the solutions, processes and partnerships proven successful (at Quayside) to subsequent developments on the eastern waterfront.”
No one doubts the film industry’s importance; last year, it grossed $2 billion. What’s up for debate is the wisdom of allowing it to take over valuable Port Lands real estate that has better uses. Movies are being made everywhere from Etobicoke and Scarborough to Downsview Park.
But the bigger issue is who’s in control. Waterfront Toronto? Sidewalk Labs? The city? The film board? As waterfront revitalization unfolds, that question becomes more critical than ever. We all know what they say about too many cooks. Christopher Hume’s column appears weekly. He can be reached at jcwhume4@gmail.com